Saturday, May 18, 2013

The failures of Committee Stage of Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

The CARE Public Policy Team have produced a helpful document summarising the shortcomings of the Committee Stage of the Government's 'Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill':

Key Facts:
 Report Stage of the Marriage Bill is now only days away
 Considerable problems with the Bill remain
 Committee stage achieved very little
 Not one word of the Bill was amended despite the fact that numerous amendments were put down
 Of the 19 MPs on the committee only four were against the Bill
 There were no dissenters in the Labour ranks

Commenting on the Committee stage Mark D’Arcy, BBC Parliamentary Correspondent said, “In short, it's all a bit of a ritual. The dissenters dissent and the supporters support, and the whole thing is as mannered as a minuet danced at the court of Louis XVI.”

A range of concerns were not properly addressed by the Government. Here are four:

1) Failure to put same sex relationships into same legal framework as opposite sex marriage

The Government’s Position

 The Government Minister, Hugh Robertson MP, supported the Bill’s position that adultery is only a ground for divorce in a marriage between two people of the opposite sex.
 The Minister noted that introducing homosexual adultery would bring “significant uncertainty for couples. It could lead to divorce applications failing, and adultery would be difficult to prove.”

Critique by MPs

 Tim Loughton asked: “Why should a same-sex couple who want to get married not be subject to the same obligations and rules as an opposite-sex couple who want to get married?”
 He added: “One could logically make the case for legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but if the standards of commitment required are different from those required in a marriage, it would be completely wrong to categorise such relationships as marriage.”
 David Burrowes remarked that debate on this issue exposed “the flawed notion of equal marriage as a concept.”

VERDICT: The notion of equal marriage is a flawed concept.

2) Failure to address inequality

The Government’s Position

 The Minister made clear, in accordance with the Bill, that couples already in a civil partnership who wish to marry will not be required to have a same sex marriage ceremony, unlike every other couple.
 He said: “a couple in a civil partnership will have already gone through a civil partnership registration, demonstrating a level of commitment not unlike-different, but not unlike-that required for a marriage ceremony.”
 He added that the conversion from a civil partnership to a marriage “will simply involve a straightforward administrative process for those who prefer that, while those who want a more public ceremony will be able to hold that at a place of their choosing.”

Critique by MPs

 David Burrowes responded: “How can I set out the Government’s case that the Bill is all about equality for same-sex couples to be married like opposite-sex couples, when only same-sex couples can be civil partners and have this conversion - perhaps this paper upgrade - to marriage, so skipping the other formal requirements of the Marriage Act?”

VERDICT: The Minister failed to address the fundamental subject of inequality.

3) Failure to address religious freedom for registrars

The Government’s Position

 The Minister argued, in accordance with the Bill, that registrars should be compelled to perform same sex marriages even if it is against their conscience or religious belief.
 The Minister responded to Tim Loughton’s question about freedom of conscience by saying: “They are different functions. One is an abortion; the other is a same-sex marriage.”

Critique by MPs

 David Burrowes and Tim Loughton pointed out that the law has long accommodated atheist teachers who do not wish to teach religion in schools and pro-life doctors who do not want to perform abortions. There is no reason why this principle should not be extended to registrars who do not wish to conduct marriage between two people of the same sex.
 The Minister was asked by Tim Loughton: “Why is it the principle that a surgeon who has strong Catholic views is allowed to pick and choose whether to perform abortions or other surgery, if the same principle cannot be applied to a Catholic registrar with strong views, allowing them to pick and choose whether to perform that other public service? What is so essentially different that we protect one but not the other?”

VERDICT: There is inconsistency in the Government’s position. In both cases public servants perform a public function for which the public pay. Merely saying that they are different functions is not justification for treating them differently.

4) Failure to address protection for schools

The Government’s Position

 The Minister asserted that “no teacher is under any duty to promote or endorse a particular view of marriage, and neither would they as a result of any revised guidance in the future.” However, he was unprepared to allow this to be written into the Bill.
 He further commented “teachers are entirely free to express their views in any reasonable way that they wish, but not in an offensive or discriminatory fashion.” But what constitutes an “offensive or discriminatory fashion” was not clarified.

Critique by MPs

 Tim Loughton quoted John Bowers QC – Employment Silk of the Year 2010 – who, in his legal opinion, says that teaching that one form of marriage is “better than another” would likely “amount to unlawful direct or indirect discrimination.”

VERDICT: The Minister was unable to address the major concern of protection for teachers who do not feel able to endorse the new definition of marriage.

119 Comments:

On point one (adultery): this is an admission by the State that a same-sex marriage is physically impossible. The act of consummation starts a marriage. The State has admitted that a same-sex partnership cannot sexually consummate their relationship. The act of adultery is the same act as consummation, but outside of a marriage. If a marriage cannot be started, it cannot be ended. There can be no such thing as same-sex adultery. This shows how much those who experience same-sex sexual attraction are being despicably abused and lied to.

On point two (Civil Partnership upgrades): If a Civil Partnership can become a marriage through the post, then the change (for those in Civil Partnerships) is one of name only. However, the name (Marriage) is already in use. So, the change (for those in marriages) is one of definition. In order for Civil Partnerships to gain a new name, all marriages must lose their definition.

Committee failures: This all comes down to power, and an "abuse of ignorance". If nothing is done, the bill will go through. Therefore those who wish the bill to go through can best get their way by...doing nothing.

I'd have thought that doing anything sexual to someone else's genitals who is not your spouse would constitute adultery. Before this Bill, I hadn't really thought about it but if I were married and my spouse gave someone a gobble then I'd think I'd been fundamentally cheated on i.e. a breach in fidelity. Obviously in the past when heirs and inheritance etc were perhaps more significant and genetic tests not available, it was having dibdob and subsequently impregnating/being impreganted outside marriage that was the core significant social issue.

If someone's husband swings both ways and was caught doing some uphill gardening on the side then wouldn't that be an issue of fidelity too? If I were the wife then I would think so. Does that fall into something like 'unreasonable behaviour' rather than 'adultery' as far as divorce is concerned?

Do you mean to say that attempts equalise homosexual relationships with heterosexual ones in the institution of marriage has resulted in a dog's breakfast of an institution where the two relationships are treated differently?

One problem is that whereas the above critique is logical and thoughtful, the "gay marriage" lobby is neither. And it has never been about true equality either.As an ex-teacher I was drawn to the last point. Is it really the job of teachers to teach on marriage anyway? And if asked, "Sir, do you think gay marriage is a good thing?" one were to give an honest answer, how would that be discrimination?

YG,Though I hold to the need for Christians to speak the truth in love, I do not think that allowing disgraceful comment to go unreproved is an aspect of Christian love.I refer to the comments on this post by someone calling him/herself as DanJO.Jesus Christ described marriage as between a man and a woman and instituted by God. St Paul described marriage as a picture of the relationship between Christ and his Church.DanJO's comments appear to describe failure to live up to the age-old standard and useage of the foundation of society which is marriage in terms which were more often used by ignorant people on the walls of public conveniences.I would suggest that such comment has no place in a post for adult and civilised society. It is an abuse of freedom of speech, which has never condoned verbal filth.

As homosexual marriage cannot involve adultery as it is deemed there is no "penetration" then it seems that two brothers or two sisters may marry as incest is not possible.

Also, if the adultery clause is dropped then I assume that the requirement for consummation is dropped and therefore a brother/sister marriage would be possible as is penetration is not an issue then incest cannot be.

There are a number of ways in which this merger of unequals could be played out. As they all effectively end with the abolition of (real) marriage, I think that most homosexualists aren't really bothered either way.

Your Grace, with the Conservative Party being torn asunder by the twin evils of SSM and the EU, your communicant notes that a well placed Tory source is describing the remaining party membership as swivel-eyed loons.

That wouldn't be Nick Boles, he that featured in an earlier post, would it?

Cranmer. Once again we are indebted to you for your selection of these objections to SSM which emerge from 'Care's' summary.

The four objection 'verdicts' are sound and substantial and reinforce the charge that this Bill is indeed a "dog's dinner"

Hastily proposed, half baked in conception, and ill thought through, it represents an unacceptable violation of both real marriage, and an attack upon the perception of marriage held in all cultures and main religions world-wide.

The Bill lacks coherence, logic, and any electoral mandate.

A further criticism is that the government failed entirely to engage in a full public consultation as to whether the principle of SSM and the redefinition of marriage should be allowed.

William: "That's because you are a gay man and so have severed the link between sex and procreation, which is why the concept of adultery exists in the first place."

Well, that's pretty much what I have said. It seems to me that the prohibition (note, not a criminal offence in the UK or, as far as I know, elsewhere in Europe) was in reality to do with valid and authentic offspring rather than modern Western notions of love in marriage, or concepts of fidelity in terms of honour.

"It's not about a "breach of trust". What business has the State in defining what constitutes a "breach of trust" in marriage anyway? Not very liberal is it?"

The marriage is a formal and structured contract between two people and between the couple and the State. I see nothing illiberal about the State handling and arbitrating contract disputes. Afterall, it does in other areas of civil law because it maintains th superstructure. Why exactly do you think it's illiberal?

I suspect you don't really care about whether it is illiberal or not yourself anyway, it's just a tag to try return the charge of hypocrisy that I throw at various people here for being unChristian. The difference is of course that I'm manifestly right in my charge and you're merely making the noises.

Phil Roberts: "You would be regarded a homophobic which could easily even as things stand now in some schools end your career."

We collectively need to stand up against things like that. It's not homophobic to put forward arguments for and against, provided it is done in sensible way by a teacher acting in his or her role. How do Christian teachers handle questions about Islam? They might say that they think it's a load of made up rubbish which incites terrorism, mistreats women, and leads its followers to hell to burn forever. Alternatively, they might answer the questions in a more neutral way, citing this and that, referring to stances, views held by mainstream religions etc.

This has always been a looming danger of redefining marriage to incorporate homosexuality. The structures of monogamy are built upon the understanding that marriage is fundamentally about procreation. Homosexual sex is existentially pointless. It has no necessary component of sexual fidelity, and indeed homosexual relationships are overwhelmingly 'open.' The homosexual community has even redefined 'faithfulness' to remove the idea of sexual fidelity. Emotional fidelity means you can still get some on the side.

What is happening is not the extension of marriage to homosexuals but the redefinition of marriage such that sexual identity no longer matters. Judges are eventually going to notice the differences between heterosexual and homosexual instantiations and homogenize the definition. You will eventually end up with a definition of marriage that makes no reference to sex. There will be no concept of adultery. There will be no concept of consummation. There will only be the legal contract between two private parties. Somewhere in that sexual chaos adults will have to make room for children - the extraneous ancillary material of some sexual activity. What natural relationship will exist in which they may be conceived and raised?

Or perhaps we should take the modern approach and simply say "Who cares? Is there another orifice around here into which I may ejaculate?"

David Cameron redefined marriage in his first conference speech as Conservative leader in 2006. Gerald Warner takes up the story:‘There’s something special about marriage,’ declared this mountebank, before going on to say: ‘And by the way, it means something whether you’re a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man.’ In these weasel words he filleted the term ‘marriage’ of any meaning by redefining it to include all the alternative arrangements to marriage.

Warner continues:The ultimate weapon of totalitarianism, as Orwell recognised, is to purge language of authentic meaning by redefining everything as its antonym. When language becomes meaningless, the totalitarian state can then impose its own specious interpretation.

He concludes:This has led to cultural Marxism’s hegemony in the West today—even in the otherwise staunchly anti-Marxist United States. The fact that the Conservative Party, under the aegis of the vacuous PR man who is its leader, has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the liberal consensus is testimony to the alarming advance of this tyranny.

The Inspector, who has given himself the dirty job of monitoring Pink News so you don’t have to, notes that the screaming about ‘equality’ as the basis for the SSM campaign conveniently leaves out infidelity as grounds for divorce. The inmates don’t even have a definition of infidelity. Does it happen with fellatio, or buggery, and if at the latter, with or without a condom.

You see, they don’t want to go there, and yet as they scream for FULL equality, and not what they now consider the half way house of CP, it is inconsistent not to address the subject and have an EQUAL measure of what can end a marriage.

There is, of course, good reason, and it’s this. Infidelity in a homosexual partnership is not so much a threat, but very nearly inevitable, and the younger the partners, the more inevitable it is. Pink News, in it’s efforts to fill their pages, have no problem publishing the thoughts and deeds of gay ‘celebrities’. And yes, you guessed it, if you are a gay celebrity, it is expected of you to live gay life to the full. And that means meeting people. New people. Lots of them.

So, whereas if the typical heterosexual woman’s response is “If he cheats on me, the marriage is over, and he knows that”, we have with the gay community “If he cheats on me, I hope he’s careful”

John Wrake. Ah, you’ve come across DanJ0. Do you know, if we didn’t have the blighter around, we’d have to invent him. You see, the Inspector has the most uncomfortable idea that he and his views are identical to our ‘progressive’ politicians private thoughts on matters everything. As Christians, we must never forget that, and never forget the daily struggle we endure in just keeping society the way it is, and not allowing it to get any worse. Which, if these degenerates have a clear way, it most surely will...

I have to say that I feel very fortunate that I live in the UK. We're pretty affluent despite the economic crisis, we're safe and secure, and our society is stable and evolutionary. Inspector, it's a pity you don't travel more broadly as I'm sure you'd come to recognise how great it is here. Issues such as people being able to marry others of the same sex are really quite trivial in the scheme of things. In some places, bombs going off or people being kidnapped or the electricity being cut off for much of the day are daily trials. You ought to cheer for being lucky enough to have citizenship here.

I don't appreciate being called a swivel eyed loony (front page of today's telegraph) by the homosexuals of Cameron's "inner circle" (as the informant is described in the telegraph) and I fancy many other respectable other people don't either. And what about the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, who has broken cabinet ranks and come out against Dave Cameron's lunacy ? Is he a swivel eyed loony too ?

The Secretary of State for Defence has embarrassed David Cameron by speaking of a “real sense of anger” among voters over the redefinition of marriage. Philip Hammond, warns of the danger of redefining marriage, speaking on BBC’s Question Time last night, the Secretary of State said there was no great demand in the country for change and criticised the amount of parliamentary time devoted to the issue. “I have just never felt that this is what we should be focusing on,” he told the audience. “This change does redefine marriage, for millions of people who are married, the meaning of marriage changes," he said.

“There is a real sense of anger among many people who are married that any government thinks it can change the definition of an institution like marriage. “There was no huge demand for this and we didn’t need to spend a lot of parliamentary time and upset vast numbers of people to do it,” he added. The comments from such a senior cabinet colleague should deeply embarrass David Cameron, and encourage Parliamentary opposition to the measure.

The Third Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill will take place in the House of Commons on Monday 20th and Tuesday 21st May. Christian Concern are holding a ‘prayer gathering’ outside Parliament on both days at 12-2pm and 5-7pm. Please support them if you can.

“Tory activists are 'mad, swivel-eyed loons', according to one of David Cameron’s closest allies. This incendiary comment made at a private dinner this week is likely to plunge relations between the Prime Minister and his party to a new low. It offers a rare insight into the contempt, disregard and irritation felt by the Prime Minister’s inner circle towards all Conservative Party members up and down the country.

The senior Party figure, who has strong social connections to the Prime Minister and close links to the party machine, blamed grassroots members for the rebellion by MPs on Europe this week. Asked about Wednesday’s vote in which 116 Conservative MPs voted against the Queen’s Speech, the figure said: 'It’s fine. There’s really no problem. The MPs just have to do it because the associations tell them to, and the associations are all mad, swivel-eyed loons.'

The remarks will worsen the rift between Mr Cameron and his party amid pressure from the Tory Right, who bounced the Prime Minister into publishing a draft referendum Bill on EU membership last week.

Bad news then as the Tory party self destructs: Prime Minister’s ally - our party members and activists are “mad, swivel-eyed loons”.

Marriage has been traditionally based on two people publicly promising to have sex with nobody else. If a promise means nothing, why make it?

Homosexualists want the sentimental flummery of weddings, with no concern for the wider significance of the institution of marriage. All they want is a chance to dress up and throw confetti, and to hell with social cohesion and the meaning of words.

There are few "members of the Prime Minister's inner circle" with "social connections" to him and "close links to the party machine". I imagine that the secret is now out. Could it be Lord Feldman Tory Party Chairman by any chance ?

4.30pm Update - The Telegraph is standing by its story. Tony Gallagher "For the record The Telegraph stands by its mad, swivel eyed, loon story". Tim Mongomerie of Conservative Home tweets "Number 10 have chosen to go to war with reporters with four newspapers. This is lunacy." James Kirkup "I have seen Lord Feldman's statement. I stand by my story. Nothing more to say beyond this: Telegraph".

"The marriage is a formal and structured contract between two people and between the couple and the State. I see nothing illiberal about the State handling and arbitrating contract disputes. Afterall, it does in other areas of civil law because it maintains th superstructure. Why exactly do you think it's illiberal?"

I see no problem with the state arbitrating over disputed contracts either. What is illiberal is your notion that the state should legislate as to what would constitute a "breach of trust" in a marriage. Trust is in the mind of the beholder, hence you are essentially saying that the "victim" has to think that trust has been breached for trust to have been breached. I kind of justification for grounds by thought.

The reason you are floundering around (in an illiberal way) is that you are trying to establish a simulacrum for consummation and adultery in the world of same sex relationships. As there is no equivalent to sexual intercourse you have to resort to issues of trust - or talk about playing with peoples' genitals. Completely missing the point of consummation and adultery. Marriage is a sexual relationship. The reason societies across cultures and through history have recognised it and promoted it is because it is fundamental to how the next generation in their societies are produced and raised. That is as true today as it has ever been.

"I suspect you don't really care about whether it is illiberal or not yourself anyway, it's just a tag to try return the charge of hypocrisy that I throw at various people here for being unChristian. The difference is of course that I'm manifestly right in my charge and you're merely making the noises."

I certainly care that it is illiberal. This whole charade is an illiberal, undemocratic, unhealthy, Orwellian pack of lies and deceipt that cuts to the very heart of our society. I have no problem with you accusing people of being unChristian, except when you display your ignorance of what it is to be a Christian.

Dave Cameron and Number 10 will doubtless be calculating that Ministers will back Lord Feldman, and that any protests from local Associations and MPs will quickly run their course. None the less, the Prime Minister, Downing Street and the media have a new casus belli. And one thing's for certain amidst the fog: David Cameron will not - absolutely not - want to lose his Party Chairman and friend, Lord Feldman. This will be a heavy blow to a vulnerable Prime Minister at the end of a turbulent week.

Lord Feldman as Party Chairman isn't an MP, but is a close friend of the Prime Minister. Lord Feldman has confirmed that he had a conversation with several lobby journalists over dinner earlier this week. And therefore his statement confirms that he is indeed the man at the centre of this controversy.

The problem at the heart of this story, and it is touched on by journalist at the Times, Mark Wallace, who tweeted that the "most damning element of the "mad, swivel-eyed loons" story is that all Tories will find it immediately believable". Quite so - as Paul Goodman made quite clear himself in the Times, "three senior Ministers and one senior backbencher told me today that in their view the Prime Minister, and some Ministers, have a very low opinion indeed of party members and activists."

Lord Andrew Feldman has said in his statement as follows: "I am taking legal advice. There is speculation on the internet and on Twitter that the senior Conservative Party figure claimed to have made derogatory comments, reported in the Times and the Telegraph is me. This is completely untrue. I would like to make it quite clear that I did not, nor have I ever described our party associations in this way or in any similar manner."

Until or unless there are further developments, it must be assumed that Lord Feldman, as Party Chairman, is sticking to his story and that the journalists are sticking to theirs. This is surely not a great place for call me "Dave" Cameron to be in. In all likelihood, a yes-he-did-no-I-didn't back and forth will continue throughout the weekend, with the papers backing their staff up, and others piling in - thus ratcheting up further their already tense relations with Dave Cameron in Number 10.

The question that obviously follows is whether some other person with "strong social connections to the Prime Minister and close links to the party machine", as the Times put it this morning, spoke the contested words. This seems not to be the case.

As far as Conservative MPs, members and activists are concerned, a certain amount depends on their view of Lord Feldman as to where his, and the Prime Minister's future lie. This must have all have an damaging effect on the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill through the Commons and the Lords over the next few weeks.

“Philip Hammond was rebuked by Downing Street on Friday over his criticism of gay marriage, amid concern that the defence secretary could be positioning for a leadership bid. A senior government official said the Prime Minister was ‘dismayed’ by Mr Hammond’s performance on the BBC’s Question Time, when he suggested that David Cameron was wasting parliamentary time and causing public anger by backing same sex marriages”

William: "I see no problem with the state arbitrating over disputed contracts either."

Well, that's a start.

"What is illiberal is your notion that the state should legislate as to what would constitute a "breach of trust" in a marriage."

Woah! The phrase I actually used was "breach in fidelity" and it had a specific sexual context. I questioned what the thing about adultery was actually about and wondered whether a blowjob would constitute adultery anyway regarding (1) in the article.

You started quoting "breach in trust" which I assumed was just another way of saying the same thing since I have never said that but now you seem to have used it to veer off elsewhere. What's that all about?

"Trust is in the mind of the beholder, hence you are essentially saying that the "victim" has to think that trust has been breached for trust to have been breached. I kind of justification for grounds by thought."

Adultery isn't a crime, it's grounds for divorce. Or one of them. If someone has been caught playing someone else's pink oboe outside the marriage then what's the essential difference between that and rogering someone? Is it just the possibility for a child resulting in the latter that matters there? I think it's fidelity that is the problem since marriage is monogamous in both teh broad and the specific sense. Note that I said grounds for divorce. The State doesn't police that, it just arbitrates if someone claims the contract has been breached.

"The reason you are floundering around (in an illiberal way) is that you are trying to establish a simulacrum for consummation and adultery in the world of same sex relationships."

Floundering? I'm deliberately making that argument, you berk. How can that not be clear? You've not revealed something stealthily coming along for the ride. What on earth did you think I was doing?

"Completely missing the point of consummation and adultery. Marriage is a sexual relationship. The reason societies across cultures and through history have recognised it and promoted it is because it is fundamental to how the next generation in their societies are produced and raised. That is as true today as it has ever been."

Missing the point? I set this out in my first messages and questioned it in the modern context. What you really mean is not that I'm missing the point but that you don't like the point I am making. Something rather different, I think.

"I certainly care that it is illiberal."

Well, I'm pleased that you claim to have a liberal bent as well as me. It's quite rare around here as I'm sure you know. Lots of people wanting to organise society along their own religious lines using their own morals as justification. A dangerous route, as we know from history here and from geography today in places like Afghanistan. But anyway, I still think your throwing the "illiberal" thing around is for what I said earlier and furthermore I think you're doing it for unChristian reasons.

Your Grace,What more can be said except that the Pink Lobby intend to destroy all family life step by step.

On my commute on Friday I was compelled to pray for Nick Clegg.Normally I might have wanted to curse him and see him deported to some far Island. But it occurred to me that as an Atheist, he is in desperate need of the Lord Jesus Christ. So my constant prayer since then has been that the Holy Spirit would meet with him as in the NT days, as He did with Saul on his way to Damascus and as He did in more recent revivals where individuals would be convicted of their sin and turn to God.

Whilst my main concern is for his own salvation, if he had a vision of what the Lord wanted for his people, I believe he could turn this whole thing around.

There is an ongoing sustained attempt to re- write 'the moral code' which God gave to humanity.Of course denial of God is part of this' re- writing process' because without a 'Law Giver' there can be no absolutes to define what the Law is or should be.So man is in the process of writing his 'own law' his own moral code.Man has already got hopelessly entangled and confused by this' re writing process'.Whenever anyone mentions' human rights'or rights of the individual it seems to often refer to the perpetrators of crime the victim seems to have little or no 'human rights'( as an example of this confusion that makes the triumph of evil over good only too easy to accomplish.)I believe God will/has taken off the restraints on man and will eventually judge him when man gets at the point of totally destroying himself and society disintegrates into moral chaos.How long this will be is anybodies guess but I personally think we are well on the way to a collision course with God.

Interesting you should say this Mr Integrity because only a handful of days ago I felt moved to pray daily for Dave Cameron and his immortal soul on the basis that we must pray for our enemies. I do pray that he will see the salvation offered by the LORD Jesus Christ before it is too late.

Crossbench peer Lord Dear has announced that he will table a motion opposing the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in the Lords on June 3. He said it was right for the Lords to reject a Bill if it feels the executive is ‘clearly acting with no democratic mandate and without regard to the proper constitutional processes’.

Mr Cameron is braced himself for a bruising week on the issue, with a string of Commons votes expected on Monday and Tuesday.

Rebels will try to force Mr Cameron to hold a referendum on gay marriage before it becomes law. They argue he has no mandate for the change as it was not in either the Tory or Lib Dem manifestos.

Rebels are also plotting to side with Labour to push through a change that would allow civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. Ministers oppose the change, fearing it will encourage cohabiting couples to take advantage of the inheritance and pension rights associated with civil partnerships. On Thursday, Equality Minister Maria Miller unveiled plans for a review on the issue, but it would not take place until five years after gay marriage is introduced and was dismissed as inadequate by all.

"it's a pity you don't travel more broadly as I'm sure you'd come to recognise how great it is here. Issues such as people being able to marry others of the same sex are really quite trivial in the scheme of things. In some places, bombs going off or people being kidnapped or the electricity being cut off for much of the day are daily trials"

When you live in a dangerous part of the world it is different. You really LIVE each day, worship in Church is fantastic, communities band together and help each other. Petty problems are more or less ignored in these communities.

It may even be ultimately more dangerous for Gays in "safe" societies like Britain. You might be open about your sexuality, put your name on a database as Gay, kiss and have sex in public perhaps. Men get bored though in these societies, or become women. Both are bad for that society

I am waiting to see what will happen when sex selection to means that there are far far fewer women than men.

Lets take China for now (India soon) with all that military hardware but not enough women.....!

Anyone following Pink News commenters will tell you that the gay campaign for marriage isn’t FOR marriage. It’s actually for EQUALITY. Or to be more precise, it’s about having access to something they feel they are being denied. Very similar to the 1970s campaign by feminists against all men clubs. They had absolutely no interest in joining these clubs, yet it irked them they exist.

In many ways homosexual agitators and their feminist counterparts are so amazingly similar. Of course, the feminists have largely gone to cover these days. They’ve wrecked everything they could, including the idea that the nuclear family is fundamental. They have abortion on demand. Even if they did take to the streets again there is little to shout about. But, some weeks ago Gloucester feminists organised what they themselves called a ‘slutwalk’

From the local rag “Campaigners against rape and violence against women took to the streets of Gloucester for the city's first Slutwalk last night. Slutwalk is an internationally recognised march which sees people donning high heels and short skirts to argue that women can wear what they want, when they want.”

The ‘walk’ ended up in the city gay pub. There’s a surprise. Oh, by the way. Forgot to mention the reason for the march. If a woman wants to walk the streets at night in just a bra and pants, then she has every right to, and without being sexually attacked. Men, take notice !

The Inspector is right with you girls. You advertise what you’ve got, and there’ll be strictly no touching !

Hmmm Just googled Gloucester slutwalk. Includes a video interview with a delightful young fatty called Kate Haigh.

Kate darling, you do so remind this man of the feminists around during his youth. In as much as one can inform you that it will be well into the night before you attract the sexual interest of a paralytic man just before he collapses into a pool of his own vomit.

You are blessed with one of mother nature’s most formidable defences she has for some women, you lucky sweet thing...

Now I suppose your point is that the more chaos the more people will seek God?.This will only happen IF there is a reference point(ie God`s Law) to judge where we are in respect of God`s Law.And some when under pressure will turn not to God but away from God some will curse Him!.

My point(you seem to have missed?) is that man is removing the reference point so that chaos(moral and civil disorder)will become 'the norm')

To put it more simply it will be like being on the high seas in a storm with the crew having flung the compass overboard because they don`t like it pointing the direction they should be heading in ...

In some ways of course, it could actually be quite good for the Church. State marriage is largely being evacuated of all meaning by people who exhaustively divide into the categories of wicked or stupid. People who take marriage seriously will find the real thing only exists in the Churches (and the synagogues etc.). (Please CofE don't drop the ball on this one...)

Throughout history moral and civil disorder did not last. It did not ultimately become the norm in all parts of the world that experienced it.

and

We in the UK are only a very small cog in God's wheel

Worldwide there have never been so many Christians.

I am optimistic, even for the UK. There will be a cost to being a Christian. That is a good thing for many reasons, not least we forget about the petty niggles and get on with each other as "brothers and sisters in Christ"

Where has the Church seen the most growth in the UK?

Inner city or leafy suburbs?

Despite popular opinion, and seemly everyone's best efforts, to stamp it out, it is growing

Albert said ..."In some ways of course, it could actually be quite good for the Church. State marriage is largely being evacuated of all meaning ..."

There is no good at all to be gained by homosexual 'marriage' - only harm. It will increase the instability of life-long marital relationships to give birth to and raise our next generation. It is the ultimate result of the vicious cycle spawned by the 'sexual liberation' and 'feminist' movements that legitimise serial cohabitation, divorce, contraception, abortion and now unnatural sexual deviancy.

Certainly it should solidify the faithful, draw them closer together in prayer and sharpen their resolve to evangelise. It may divide the orthodox from the heretic. But how many souls will be lost? The impact of this on the next generation is frightening.

Surely a corrupt society with a divided church (one section adjusting to the world and the resisting this), is less likely to prepare its children for receiving the true message of Christ and enabling them to walk with Him?

In the West we seem to be moving back to the times of pagan Rome and Greece!

Well Poddles,,,time for a reality check.I agree with you. The prognosis does not look good.The west will disintegrate with a return to paganism. Real Christianity will be in the minority non p c and probably made illegal.The only countries that will not support s s m will be the Islamic countries. Orthodox jews will be imprisoned here for practising circumcision and their children will be removed from their care ....Albert should be grateful for Muslim countries rather than those countries sanctioning marriage between queers.King George V said" I always thought chaps like that shot themselves"He was God's representative on Earthfor the C of E I believe.Much harder line than the Catholic stance.

Phil:"Despite popular opinion, and seemly everyone's best efforts, to stamp it out, it is growing"

It's formally protected by Article 9 of the ECHR, and rightly so. It's also covered by the HRA in the UK, introduced by Tony Blair. It's never clear who all these 'cultural marxists' are that the far right talk about but I'd have thought he was one of them. That's the guy who was a practising Christian and converted to Roman Catholicism

A little aside - Across the channel they've just written gay marriage into French law. Result? Mr Hollande is now officially the most unpopular French president ever, not just because of this issue admittedly. But it’s earned him no brownie points (pun intended) at all

Any politician who thinks sodo-marriage will get them the "cool" vote has their head stuck up their own backside (or someone else's backside more likely)

The French have been more vocal about their opposition (mass demos for example) than we have. This goes somewhat against the French stereotype of sexual liberalism. Thankfully, there's no law that cannot be repealed. It might take time, but a law that is so unpopular, offensive, and plainly absurd is unlikely to stand the test of time. I wish our French counterparts success in getting rid of this law and that amoral slug of a president.

Masrek Rollin, thank you for reminding us of the true nature of the beast collectively described as sexual perversion. "Queers are not victims", they are sexual abusers.

In many pasts of this society we are already as pagan Rome and Greece, Peter D.

Thank God for the "mad, swivel eyed loons" who still believe in God, in the Salvation of Jesus Christ, of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and of the power of his Word. Hebrews 4 : 12

For the Word of God is quick, and powerful,and sharper than any two-edged sword,piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit,and the joints and marrow,and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Hebrews 4 : 12

This is why the queers and Godless (those who have a reprobate mind) seek to destroy Christians because the Word of God convicts them of their sin, by exposing into their conscious or even unconscious minds the true nature of their wicked, perverted and lying desires and actions, which they have stored within their hearts.

Are they Cameron's own words?"A report in the Financial Times at the time said Mr Cameron 'tells colleagues that anyone who wants to talk to him about the EU is 'swivel-eyed'.' The comment came in a major profile of the Prime Minister by the paper's respected political editor George Parker. Mr Parker last night declined to say who told him the PM uses the term. The FT profile was compiled with substantial help from Lord Feldman, among others." - Mail on Sunday

"Two weeks after Nigel Farage's party achieved its best-ever result in the local elections in England and Wales, a ComRes survey shows almost one in five people plan to vote for Ukip at the next general election. Labour has dipped to its lowest levels since Ed Miliband became leader, down three points to 35 per cent, the Tories are down one point on 29 per cent, while the Lib Dems remain stuck in single figures, at 8 per cent." - Independent on Sunday

Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans is under renewed pressure today as a 'THIRD victim claims he was sexually assaulted by the Tory MP'

The Deputy Speaker is not chairing meetings while police investigation is ongoing as we know. Now a third man has reportedly come forward with claims that he was sexually assaulted by the House of Commons Deputy Speaker. Nigel Evan MP now faces renewed pressure to resign after claims emerged yesterday that a third man has told police he was also abused by the Deputy Speaker, within the House of Commons itself, two years ago.

I have no doubt that support for UKIP will continue to grow, as they are the only party that seems not to be stuck in the political mold. Even if they don't get a lot seats in Westminster, they can do a lot of electoral damage to the other parties. One option for the Tories would be to ditch Cameron, the LibDems, and the SSM bill without hesitation, then form some sort of pact with UKIP. If they don't, then we risk having another Labour governemnt - in other words: nothing would change in British politics

True..Ton Blair converted to Catholicism which does not make him a Catholic. A Catholic does not believe in s s m. I can call myself Princess Pavlova but that does not make it so or I can claim to be Catholic theologian (convert) and still have no basic understanding of confession.Catholicism even though it has been reduced to a certain extent to Mickey Mouse/Blue Peter communal get togethers will always have a core of dogma that cannot change regardless of the Tony Blairs and attempts to sugar coat Catholicism to make it more palatable to the populace..

What I want to know is, who in the House of Commons is going to stand up on Monday or Tuesday and make a strong, forthright, reasoned attack on the Bill using some of the many arguments put forward here and by C4M and others?

Above all, who is going to point out that marriage by two people of the same sex is an anatomical impossibility?

Please, please, you MPs who support real marriage, do not be mealy-mouthed, and do not be unduly polite. Expose the absurdity and irresponsibility of this Bill!

Peter,I am len/LEN with whom you have crossed swords with on more than one occasion.My old computer expired and I cannot access any of my old stuff so I have had to redo everything which is a bit of a task because I am not that good with computers.So yes it is indeed me.(Must get back to honing my sword)

Not in itself, of course - I hope my comments make my mind clear on that. However, I notice that God is always bringing good out of evil, what we need to do is to see which goods he wishes to bring out the evil and ensure we do not obstruct him.

I don't think gay 'marriage' will last. I think our present culture will not last. The stupid liberalism that decides everything is slowly destroying it's own foundations and stupid liberals are apparently too stupid to see it. It will give way to something else soon enough. After all, it is only possible to live in such an anti-social way if there is plenty of money away. Even this morning the Telegraph has run an article on a book saying the money is running out (and who would deny it). Spain surely cannot carry on with unemployment at 27% for long. Every secular project has failed and the Church has outlived them all. This is no different.

The important thing is that when it all fails, the Church has extracted herself from the mess. For most of the last 200 hundred years, the Catholic Church understood that the secular project was implacably opposed to goodness (the unprecedented butchery of the secularists has confirmed this endlessly). For the last 50 years, in an attempt to have a more nuanced view of modernity, the Catholic Church has lost her way in some respects. Things like this help to make the direction the Church needs to take clearer. That is a good thing, as the form of this world is passing away.

Phil Roberts,There is 'a tide' coming in which threatens to sweep away all that is good that is moral and that is right.

This is a war as old as time itself.This war is described in the' book of Job.'

God gives.. satan attempts to take away what God has given..

God has given us' His Manual' for living an ordered moral righteous life.Satan attempts to steal that Life away from us so that he can remain ruler over the Chaos.

Wherever there is death, disease,wars, moral decline,deception, 'chaos' in fact you will find satan is the author of it.

Whoever rebels against God`s order submits(by default) to satan`s authority and satan becomes their master.There is no' middle ground' in this age old battle.It is ironic that those who wish to be free of God become slaves to satan.

So God will lift his hand of restraint on evil and satan will be loosed upon those who rebel against Godly order, some will be so sickened by this rising tide of evil and turn to God others will love the darkness and hate the light so much they will curse God.So we are entering dangerous times as the church(even the growing church) becomes in many cases apostate.Jesus says that few will be saved even amongst those who even call Him' Lord'.Unless we are' born again' joined one spirit with the Lord and not have merely joined a 'religious club' there is the possibility of us being 'cast off'.It is vitally important at these times that that the gospel is preached as Jesus preached it notas man has corrupted the gospel for his own ends.

LENThen welcome back, pilgrim and I look forward to less fractious discussions in the future.

AlbertI completely agree with you. We have Christ's promise to His Church that gives us heart. As you suggest, this further affront to God could be the ultimate offence that culminates in the collapse of the West.

I'm getting confused what's supposed to happen when people of the same sex can marry as well as set up homes with tasteful soft furnishings. Is it that the sky will fall in, or that Muslim hoards will take over and murder us all in our beds, or that we'll all come to our senses when we can't afford to upgrade to the next model of iPhone, beat 'queers' up and force them underground again once the Jews and other 'immigrants' have been taken care of, and invite Christians to tell us how to live our lives according to Christian precepts? Well, that's if Harold Camping doesn't pipe up again with a more accurate estimate of the end of the world.

"I'm getting confused what's supposed to happen when people of the same sex can marry ..."

People of the same sex cannot marry, it is a contradiction - that's the point.

The acceptance of homosexuality as 'normal', then institutionalising and promoting it, will undermine the basic building block of society - the family. You know, mother, father and children. It's from the same poisoned source as serial cohabitation, contraception, abortion and divorce.

Who knows whether the collapse of the West will be a slow or lengthy process and just what or who will be the instrument of our downfall?

William: "The people trying to put this bill together don't seem to have a clue either."

I agree, it does seem to be a bit of a pig's ear at the moment. But of course I was just poking fun at the swivel-eyed loons who have to make the loss alright in their heads by imagining / hoping for some calamity happening as a result. Perhaps a Christchurch-level earthquake here would suit so that they can stand around as 1000s of bodies are removed from collapsed buildings and say "Well, I told you so. Our god won't be mocked!" with a smug and self-righteous look on their faces.

Praise God and halleluya Dave Cameron's plans seem to be unraveling. Lord Feldman's remarks couldn't have been better timed to cause the maximum destruction to Dave Cameron's authority, power and credibility if God had timed and organised it himself. Just maybe He did.

Then, predictably, one baby will be removed alive and others will cry "It's a miracle! Praise [our] god!". That is, the sort of thing that happens quite regularly when a plane crashes and a god gets praised for saving one ... rather than the planeload. But then there must be a 'plan' for that one to justify it, one that we can't know at the moment, so that the god can bring good out of evil or some other religious guff.

"Perhaps a Christchurch-level earthquake here would suit so that they can stand around as 1000s of bodies are removed from collapsed buildings and say "Well, I told you so. Our god won't be mocked!" with a smug and self-righteous look on their faces."

Well let's hope (and pray) there's no "earthquake"; for the sake of the victims and to save us from the gloating, self-righteous who profess to know the mind of God.

"But then there must be a 'plan' for that one to justify it, one that we can't know at the moment, so that the god can bring good out of evil or some other religious guff."

Or there's absolutely no plan at all, in which case none of this really matters when push comes to shove.

Great news inspector, lets hope with the whites of their eyes in the sights God will annihilate the whole crazy proposed legislation totally. What more do these perverts want that they don't already have with civil partnerships ?

At the time that homosexuality was legalised between "consenting adults in private", in 1967, there were those who condemned the new law as a "bugger's charter".(They were regarded as "blimps" and "fossils", as I recall.) My father didn't use those words, but he cited it as a symptom of a society going rotten, like the Roman empire. I was a good, tolerant, semi-hippy, and thought that was an over-reaction. Just let the queers get on with their lives, I thought, and things will be cool.

Nearly half a century on, I still regard the 1967 act as humane and civilised (it was steered through parliament by one of the few Labour MPs whom I admire, Leo Abse). That it has,in fact, been turned into a "bugger's charter" is due to the moral cowardice and intellectual sloth of politicians, who have now surrendered intelligence itself in attempts to satisfy the demands of a noisy minority of a minority for a delusive equality.

One of today's most prominent homosexuals, k d lang, sings of her "constant craving". That is it, exactly. It is in the nature of homosexuality never to be satisfied. What they want cannot be had.

A society only survives because it looks after its young properly. Only thus can any society have a future and the elderly be properly cared for. To achieve this, every society, until now, has privileged above all others, the relationship that produces the children. This provides a stable context for the children, which in turn maximises their chances of growing up to make a positive contribution to society. Our society is largely giving up on this - and while it is wealthy, the social effects can be managed (or at least masked). But when the money runs out, we will need to sure up the family and that will mean privileging that relationship once more.

It won't be hard to do achieve this in that context, because even the Bill supporting gay 'marriage' is hopelessly illogical. Gay 'marriage' rests not on reason, but on wishful thinking, flying in the face of reason. Once people have to wish, by straightened circumstances, for something else, everyone will wonder why gay 'marriage' ever appeared at all. If gay 'marriage' has resulted, in the meantime, in supporters of proper marriage losing their jobs etc. then there will be, in that day, something of a backlash.

Looking after the young properly is indeed very important, which is why allowing gay couples to adopt children was just as great a misjudgement as gay marriage. The effect of all this "gayness" on children is never discussed, which is a pity.

To me, allowing homosexuals to adopt is tantamount to state-sponsored child abuse. Nobody is allowed to even study these children, as it would be discrimiantory to come up with anything other than a resoundingly positive analysis.

By calling it equal marriage they are saying that children do not need a mother or mother-figure, they can have two men instead. Or they do not need a father or father-figure, they can have two women instead.

The perversity of the position is almost farcical. It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerously deranged. One can't quite believe its happening.

Russian President Vladimir Putin recently warned he is considering a ban on the adoption of Russian children for states that allow single-sex marriages.

"We treat our partners with respect, but we ask that they treat with respect the cultural traditions, the ethic, legal and moral norms of Russia."

Meanwhile our leaders treat our traditions and moral norms with utter contempt in the name of 'diversity' and 'equality'!

So called "Gay Pride" events have been vetoed in Moscow because they offend locals and several regions of Russia have a ban on “homosexual propaganda” among minors. Russian law has been used to detain homosexual rights activists carrying rainbow flags. Russia’s Family Code does not allow adoption by same-sex couples.

Earlier this year, Moscow said it was concerned for the mental health of a Russian boy who was adopted by an American woman who concealed she was a lesbian. When the woman split up with her 'partner' and a custody battle ensued, the Russian Foreign Ministry said the child was in a situation of "highly dubious morality".

William. The Inspector is not aware that the issue of gay adoption has ever been discussed in the House. Instead, he fears it has been foisted upon society by the cultural Marxists who run the Children’s services. This is a damnable situation, and must be redressed at the earliest as the welfare of the young is at stake.

One hopes that any parliamentarians who view this site may find the subject of sufficient import to table a private members bill.

The ill-advised UK Same Sex Marriage Bill, and its incoherent and un-democratic path to legislation ...

Conservative Grassroots, a new force in Tory Politics promoted by Bob Stewart MP, Peter Bone MP, Douglas Carswell MP, John Glen MP and Anne McIntosh MP, is of the opinion that the 'Perversion of Marriage' Bill is politically, intellectually and philosophically bankrupt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_QIKRVDpf8&feature=player_embedded

They say "People who have supported the party for decades have pledged never to vote Tory again as a result of this policy and its management. In the presentation and execution of the Perversion of Marriage Bill, the Tory party leadership has demonstrated no interest in the views of its members or the core Conservative vote. The Conservative Grassroots Group say, we will not be alone in our experience of angry activists rescinding their membership or the dismay of voters expressed during conversations on the doorstep."

William. Let us hope the gay business of late allows a greater investigation into the gay lifestyle. One is particularly concerned with the cost to the public purse of treating gay diseases. One does not see a gay lifestyle as valid, especially not with the disease prevalent, and as we know, there is no cure for HIV.

Downing Street issued a stark warning that the bill to legalise queer 'marriage' will run into grave trouble – and cost the taxpayer an extra £4bn – if the Labour party joins forces with Tory opponents to vote in favour of granting civil partnerships to heterosexual couples.

The government warned of three dangers to the bill if an amendment to grant civil partnerships to heterosexual couples is passed. It is being tabled by the former children's minister Tim Loughton who opposes gay marriage. A government source said the Loughton amendment would:

• Come with a price tag of £4bn. Steve Webb, the pensions minister, told parliament's joint committee on human rights last week that the state would be liable for new "survivors'" pension rights .

• Delay the introduction of the entire bill by 18 to 24 months because the government would need to work on the joint implementation of new rights for gay married couples and heterosexual couples in new civil partnerships.

• Complicate the government's argument that the changes are about strengthening the institution of marriage by opening it to all couples. "If you open up civil partnerships to opposite sex couples then the institution of marriage will be weakened," one government source said.

The anger over the bill was highlighted when 35 current and former heads of Conservative associations handed in a letter to No 10 lambasting the prime minister. They wrote: "Your proposal to redefine marriage is flawed, un-Conservative, divisive, and costing us dearly in votes and membership.

Labour sources voiced fears that No 10 appeared to be trying to find ways of killing the bill.

" tasteful soft furnishings" are not really the issue here, although the gays I know spend their whole lives so it seems trying to get their houses tidy and well lets say you can tell it is a gay house within 2 min of coming in the door.

As to your other question, I'm not God so I don't know. The evidence is from history and the Bible that that you will not be left (in peace?) for long.

Of course we could be entering a new era etc of peace and harmony courtesy of the various laws that the great gods Tony, Cameron and many others have recently written for our benefit of us all.

As I said before, this road is too boring for men (and does not help women much either)

Now if men become women and women more like men and we all enjoy this lovely (bi/poly?) future together?

Don't forget in a few months time my wife could have an affair and I could not call it adultery!

The Tory party board said he would be asking Feldman to explain himself.

Brian Binley, the Conservative MP for Northampton South, who has been an officer of the party for 54 years, said: "This is a very disturbing matter and needs a full and proper review at the party board meeting. From that meeting I will decide how I will act thereafter."

The involvement of the board, which represents the views of Tory activists, will dismay Downing Street. Homosexual Lord Mandelson said: "One wing – the provisional wing – of the Conservative party want to bring down their leader and change their party's policy.

I don't know a great deal of Gays well enough to be invited into their houses. My sample is small.

Also as I have said before, my wife can often spot a new colleague who is Gay ususally a long time before the rest of us or he feels confident enough to let everyone know.

Hannah no disrespect, but the lesbians I have met at work have been without exception really nasty individuals under a sometimes very thin gloss and often as a result, cannot get on with other (straight)staff both male and female.

I would not knowingly recruit a lesbian for this reason alone. Sorry, I am sure you are the exception to the rule!

Now, with your unfortunately bitchy lesbians, the phrase 'don't judge a book by it's cover' springs to mind. Clearly, it is up to you if you wish to judge or come to conclusions about all lesbians through the couple of people you've met at work and have therefore decided not to employ them.

Does that mean if,say, a couple of ethnic minority employees had found to be defrauding the company, you wouldn't employ anymore people with darker skin?

Does that mean if I watched the Jeremy Kyle show, it is a true representation of the UK?

It costs a lot to hire someone and a heck of a lot more to get rid of someone.

It starts out OK later you amy learn that they have a partner who is also female.

OK perhaps then all hell breaks loose often slowly but over a period of months and years.

If they are a boss or head of section then it can be 10 times worse.

I have perhaps known around 20 lesbians at the company over the years. Their partners often seem quite nice, I have often thought about telling some of them to go home and send their "partner" in instead!

Even if they cannot do the job at least they might be pleasant to work with!

I can always use anyone who works hard and is pleasant, what I cannot use is nasty/bitchy, no mater how competent they are.

Well I'm sorry you've met 20 lesbians and they've all been horrible. I've never come across it myself. I find with bitchy people, this is more to do with individuals and personality clashes than attributing nasty characteristics to a whole set of people.... but hey, ho, we can agree to disagree there.

My belief is that somehow these lesbians (usually older, the partners younger) deep down are unhappy with their lives. They certainly seem unhappy, but then I see them when they have been found out and are facing the music.

They seem to resent others being happy, particularly other women, who have husbands and families etc.

You sometimes get the same with single women who reach a certain age and are still single, or have suffered a divorce and cannot find anyone to remarry.

In my experience hetro women hate lesbians, so perhaps it was better for them that they dealt with me.

Well, despite your personal downer on lesbians (I am not sure where the second half of your initial reply came from, btw, as my first comment to you was a jovial wink and nod about a gay stereotype), you can now say you've met 20 nasty lesbians and one cool one (i.e.ME!).

Now I am neither lonely, bitter, angry or frustrated; sometimes "melancholy", but not often. My older siblings have families and are married and I'm not jealous of them. I don't hate hetro women or men as some of my best friends are straight men and women. And I do know how to party and keep my faith at the same time.

Phil,in my experience men like you are mysogynists of low self esteem and intelligence most likely physically disadvantaged running unsavoury dodgy businesses preying on the weak and vulnerable usually giving it a religious tag...Christianty is not an uncommon one. Your opinion of lesbians is not of interest to anyone with a brain.Try learning to spell or reading a book. You may find it a more worthwhile experience than bagging women!

Who needs wind farms? The swivelling eyes on here could power the National Grid!

Dodo/ Peter D/ Mr Integrity - as has already been established in the 19 or so countries that have legislated for equal marriage, the sky doesn't fall in. You know this, but it suits your purposes to proclaim some end of days scenario, working Mrs King up into her copy/ paste paroxyms which would be called spam, if spam were as liberally spread as the green belt.

The net effect of equal marriage upon people who don't seek it is NOTHING. It will affect you not one jot, as the excellent speech by the witty lawmaker in the NZ parliament pointed out.

I wonder, if a man in Saudi Arabia converted to Catholicism, would you expect that he abide by his obligation to proclaim Islam as the only religious truth, damning young souls as he went?

All this talk of difficult people reminds me of a business parable that I learned when I was a young and naive man. In my first job in the city, the firm wasn't doing well and I received a call from a recruitment agency, trying to get me to jump ship, a rival firm wanted me to join them.

The snag was that the department of that firm was run by (reputation) complete tyrant, you need balls like watermelons to stand up to this guy, whom had humiliated me at a bash a year before.

But I did give the guy a call and I said 'thanks for the offer, but frankly didn't think you liked me'.

The tyrant said 'I'm offering you a job'

'We don't get along' I shot back. And with a slight exaggeration I continued 'You scream at me'.

The tyrant replied 'I don't like you, but I would much rather have partners that are really smart M-F's than guys I like'.

Well that's Phil Roberts out of the comments thread for the day then. And too right. A standard Jewish wedding contract includes the basic rights of a bride, one of which is frequent and 'adequate' sex and if they are not to the wife's liking, that is legitimate grounds for divorce...

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)